Environmental nonprofits are vital implementation partners for Gulf Coast resilience, yet little is known, and few studies rigorously document, how their environmental actions translate into community-health co-benefits across the region. This project uses a structured, three-round Delphi process (anonymous, iterative expert survey designed to build consensus) to synthesize 30 nonprofit leaders’ judgments into actionable guidance. In Phase 1, panelists inventory organizational actions, community-engagement stages, climate-health threats, vulnerable subgroups, operational challenges, response strategies, evidence standards, resource needs, and partnership “wish-list” changes (open-ended prompts plus checklists). In Phase 2, the same panel rates these items on paired criteria to surface priorities and trade-offs: environmental impact vs. health co-benefit for actions; importance vs. difficulty for engagement stages; frequency vs. severity for threats; vulnerability vs. difficulty to reach for subgroups; and effectiveness vs. feasibility for strategies. Phase 2 also includes a matrix that maps strategies to challenge categories (funding, policy/bureaucracy, capacity, engagement/trust, infrastructure, monitoring/evaluation, and coordination) to highlight high-leverage matches. In Phase 3, panelists review group medians and revise scores, producing convergence on top-ranked interventions, consensus attributes of “effective” initiatives, credible yet feasible evidence practices, and “low-effort/high-impact” resources and policy shifts for the sector. Anticipated deliverables include: a ranked “what works” list of nonprofit actions with health co-benefits; a challenge-to-strategy crosswalk for small-to-mid-sized organizations; and consensus guidance on evidence standards and funder-ready resource priorities. This study will translate practitioner expertise into replicable recommendations for Gulf communities.